linear_createCustomerNeedFromAttachment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds little behavioral detail. It says 'create or unarchive' but doesn't clarify idempotency (e.g., what happens if the need already exists and is not archived?), error states, or side effects such as whether the attachment is consumed or modified. The output schema exists but doesn't mitigate the lack of behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It is concise but could benefit from an additional sentence for clarity without losing brevity. The structure is front-loaded with the key action, making it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (create/unarchive, attachment integration) and 4 parameters, the description is insufficient. It lacks details about the unarchive behavior, required permissions, return format (though output schema exists), and relationships with sibling tools. The high schema coverage and output schema partially compensate, but the description still feels incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain the relationship between customerId and customerExternalId, nor the priority scale's exact meaning. Thus, no additional value, so score stays at 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the verb 'create or unarchive', the resource 'customer need', and the source 'from an existing attachment'. It distinguishes from siblings like linear_createCustomerNeed (which likely creates from scratch) and linear_unarchiveCustomerNeed (which only unarchives). However, the 'unarchive' aspect could be clarified: it implies unarchiving if a need already exists for that attachment but doesn't fully explain the condition.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like linear_createCustomerNeed, linear_unarchiveCustomerNeed exist, but the description does not mention when one is preferred over the other. The implied usage is when you have an attachment and want to associate a customer need, but no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.